David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):219-255 (2004)
This paper expands on, and provides a qualified defence of, Arthur Fine's selective interactions solution to the measurement problem. Fine's approach must be understood against the background of the insolubility proof of the quantum measurement. I first defend the proof as an appropriate formal representation of the quantum measurement problem. The nature of selective interactions, and more generally selections, is then clarified, and three arguments in their favour are offered. First, selections provide the only known solution to the measurement problem that does not relinquish any of the explicit premises of the insolubility proofs. Second, unlike some no-collapse interpretations of quantum mechanics, selections suffer no difficulties with non-ideal measurements. Third, unlike most collapse interpretations, selections can be independently motivated by an appeal to quantum propensities. IntroductionThe problem of quantum measurement2.1 The ignorance interpretation of mixtures2.2 The eigenstate–eigenvalue link2.3 The quantum theory of measurementThe insolubility proof of the quantum measurement3.1 Some notation3.2 The transfer of probability condition (TPC)3.3 The occurrence of outcomes condition (OOC)A defence of the insolubility proof4.1 Stein's critique4.2 Ignorance is not required4.3 The problem of quantum measurement is an idealisationSelections5.1 Representing dispositional properties5.2 Selections solve the measurement problem5.3 Selections and ignoranceNon-ideal selections6.1 No-collapse interpretations and non-ideal measurements6.2 Exact and approximate measurements6.3 Selections for non-ideal interactions6.4 Approximate selections6.5 Implications for ignoranceSelective interactions test quantum propensities7.1 Equivalence classes as physical ‘aspects’: a critique7.2 Quantum dispositions7.3 Selections as a propensity modal interpretation7.4 A comparison with Popper's propensity interpretation
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Mauricio Suárez (2004). Quantum Selections, Propensities and the Problem of Measurement. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 55 (2):219 - 255.
Nicholas Maxwell (1973). The Problem of Measurement - Real or Imaginary? American Journal of Physics 41:1022-5.
Nicholas Maxwell (1972). A New Look at the Quantum Mechanical Problem of Measurement. American Journal of Physics 40:1431-5..
Nicholas Maxwell (1975). Does the Minimal Statistical Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Resolve the Measurement Problem? Methodology and Science 8:84-101.
Mauricio Suárez (2007). Quantum Propensities. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B 38 (2):418-438.
Jeffrey Bub (1988). From Micro to Macro: A Solution to the Measurement Problem of Quantum Mechanics. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1988:134 - 144.
Amit Hagar (2005). Quantum Information - What Price Realism? Intl. J. Of Quantum Information 3 (1):165-170.
Richard Healey (1989). The Philosophy of Quantum Mechanics: An Interactive Interpretation. Cambridge University Press.
Zhengjun Xi & Yongming Li (2013). Quantum and Classical Correlations in Quantum Measurement. Foundations of Physics 43 (3):285-293.
Michael Dickson (2007). Is Measurement a Black Box? On the Importance of Understanding Measurement Even in Quantum Information and Computation. Philosophy of Science 74 (5):1019–1032.
Manuel Bächtold (2008). Five Formulations of the Quantum Measurement Problem in the Frame of the Standard Interpretation. Journal for General Philosophy of Science 39 (1):17 - 33.
I. I. I. Durand (1960). On the Theory of Measurement in Quantum Mechanical Systems. Philosophy of Science 27 (2):115-133.
Frank Arntzenius (1993). How to Discover That the Real is Unreal. Erkenntnis 38 (2):191 - 202.
Rodolfo Gambini, Luis Pedro Garcia Pintos & Jorge Pullin (2010). Undecidability and the Problem of Outcomes in Quantum Measurements. Foundations of Physics 40:93-115.
Added to index2010-09-02
Total downloads26 ( #55,322 of 1,004,651 )
Recent downloads (6 months)4 ( #22,116 of 1,004,651 )
How can I increase my downloads?